W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2017

RE: Varied answers Re: Color Contrast (Minimum) Level AA requirement for "Photography" image

From: Subramanian, Poornima (PCL) <psubramanian@hagroup.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:29:43 +0000
To: Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex.ru>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CY4PR0701MB364938B103525B8A2CC36624C07E0@CY4PR0701MB3649.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Thank you all for providing your suggestions.

Yes, the brochure title is provided as "text" below the image. The title may not cover all the text in the image, as the image is the "photograph of brochure cover page".

From all your suggestions and reading the below note from WCAG 1.4.3 Color Contrast, it looks like "the image can be still shown as how it appears, and showing with higher resolution is an option".

Note: Images of text do not scale as well as text because they tend to pixelate. It is also harder to change foreground and background contrast and color combinations for images of text, which is necessary for some users. Therefore, we suggest using text wherever possible, and when not, consider supplying an image of higher resolution.

Thanks again!


-----Original Message-----
From: Chaals McCathie Nevile [mailto:chaals@yandex.ru]
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 8:02 AM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Varied answers Re: Color Contrast (Minimum) Level AA requirement for "Photography" image

I have now seen three different apparently different replies, based on three different *assumptions* (or apparent assumptions) about how the image is being used.

One thing this makes clear is that context is important - the way you are using this image has a significant impact on what you need to do to ensure accessibility. Providing a version of the page in which the image was used might have been more helpful in getting consistent answers.

The differences in suggestions for "alt text" are entirely due to the different assumptions about the use of the image - each explanation makes sense for the underlying assumptions.

Looking beyond the differences, there are some common parts to the answer.
Richard, Patrick and I all note, in different words, that if you want the text that is in the image to be accessible, you should ideally put it on the page *as text*, whether additional to the graphic or replacing the graphic with its background image. And as Richard notes, you may want to keep the brochure image with its text to help recognition of the physical brochure.

(more below)

On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 11:10:24 +0200, Userite <richard@userite.com<mailto:richard@userite.com>> wrote:

> The image that you are using is a photo of a brochure that exists in
> the physical world. You do not need to make any changes to the image
> as it shows thereal thing.  You DO NOT need to change the image at all
> to make itaccessible.  What you do need to do is include an
> alternative text attribute to the code that loads the image so that
> makes the photo accessible.
> A suitable text alternative would be “Summer Caribbean holiday
> brochure”.  The fact that the brochure text is not complying with the
> guideline is not relevant in this case.  You are showing your visitor
> whatthe brochure looks like so they can recognise it in a shop.  The
> image isnot being used to present textual information.  You should
> write the texton the brochure elsewhere on the page if you want users
> to know what thebrochure text says.

> Guideline 1.4.3 refers to when you make an image of text that you then
> wantto use to impart information.  For example if I want to have a
> fancy “Welcome” message at the top of my page then I can make an image of the
> word“Welcome” using Photoshop with some really exciting font effects.
> In thiscase I need to employ good colour contrast because I want the
> visitor to be ableto read the message and feel welcome.   What your
> image is showing isa brochure, not textual information.

> Remember that the guidelines are just guidelines.  You need to make a
> value judgement as to what guideline is relevant.

To the extent that WCAG is written well, it is a technical specification, and the success criteria are in fact requirements that need to be met if you are going to ensure your content is accessible.

Like most technical specifications, it is not perfect - and like most technical specifications it is fair to expect the next version, which is under development, will be better but also not perfect.

> To do this you shouldread and understand the supporting documentation.
> If you go to
> https://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-UNDERSTANDING->WCAG20-20051123/Overview.
> html#visual-audio-contrast10 for information about 1.4.3 and you will
> see that it is not relevant in yourcase.

I'm not sure that I would draw that conclusion, since I don't have enough context to clearly judge the case. But I agree that it is important to look at the supporting documentation - and even more importantly to think, and consider what is happening when a user is faced with the content you produce.



Chaals is Charles McCathie Nevile
find more at http://yandex.com

This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________

The information contained in this email and any attachment may be confidential and/or legally privileged and has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you are not an intended recipient, you are not authorized to review, use, disclose or copy any of its contents. If you have received this email in error please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of the message. Thank you.

To the extent that the matters contained in this email relate to services being provided by Princess Cruises and/or Holland America Line (together "HA Group") to Carnival Australia/P&O Cruises Australia, HA Group is providing these services under the terms of a Services Agreement between HA Group and Carnival Australia.
Received on Friday, 29 September 2017 14:30:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 29 September 2017 14:30:15 UTC